State v. Curry

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Curry

533 S.W.2d 687, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2403

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 9, 1976·No. No. KCD 27838·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant’s single point is, “The court erred in failing to sustain defendant’s challenge for cause of the venireman Hale.” This utterly fails to comply with Rule 84.-04(d) [made applicable to criminal cases by Rule 28.18] in that there is no statement as to wherein and why the ruling of the court is claimed to be erroneous. Counsel should note the relevant remarks of Simeone, J., in L. L. v. V. F. L. and M. D. S., Inc., [Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, No. 37,061, decided January 20,1976], relating to dismissal for improper briefing.

The appeal is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant’s single point is, “The court erred in failing to sustain defendant’s challenge for cause of the venireman Hale.” This utterly fails to comply with Rule 84.-04(d) [made applicable to criminal cases by Rule 28.18] in that there is no statement as to wherein and why the ruling of the court is claimed to be erroneous. Counsel should note the relevant remarks of Simeone, J., in L. L. v. V. F. L. and M. D. S., Inc., [Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, No. 37,061, decided January 20,1976], relating to dismissal for improper briefing.

The appeal is dismissed.

State v. Curry, 533 S.W.2d 687, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2403 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

533 S.W.2d 687 (State v. Curry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related